- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Er, no.
I guess you're ready to bring back the Dred Scott ruling as well as Jim Crow.
Er, no.
the sins of ones past actions or
beliefs should not continue to define
someone 50 years later. is that in effect what the supreme court ruled in their decision today? that southern states should not continue to subjected to the preclearance requirements of voting rights act because of their past actions of racial discrimination?
I agree that there are many laws which simply should not be on the books, but we can't have the Court throwing them out because it thinks they're no longer applicable -- that's for Congress to decide.
I guess you're ready to bring back the Dred Scott ruling as well as Jim Crow.
You are making Josie's mistake. I'll repeat myself and highlight the relevant portion that both of you missed:
If the law was Constitutional in 1964 it is still Constitutional now. If the Supreme Court is allowed to throw out Federal law passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President on the basis of it being outdated and nothing more, I guess that means the Constitution is up for grabs as a whole.
As long as the Democrats keep creating false Narratives like the Republicans war on whatever, and appealing to the stupidest among us the Country will continue to decline.
People want jobs, not manufactured narratives.
Alas, they're moving to Texas.
the court can throw out any federal law it wishes, according to the current, mindset of america....congress creates law, the court decides if they are legal..
Don't know what law you're talking about, but this one was passed in 2006 and challenged shortly thereafter. Your claim that "it was simply judged out-of-date" is absurd.All of that is irrelevant. The law was not struck down on Constitutional grounds, not even based on a rickety BS argument. It was simply judged out-of-date, which is not a determination the Court can make.
I agree that there are many laws which simply should not be on the books, but we can't have the Court throwing them out because it thinks they're no longer applicable -- that's for Congress to decide.
whose job is it write legeslation to create jobs?
That's. The reason we have 3 coequal branches of government.
I don't care what the mindset of America is, I'm saying they needed to cite at least the barest hint of a Constitutional reason. Otherwise, any law -- including the Constitution -- is up for grabs on the basis of age.
The power to regulate elections is reserved to the states per the 10th amendment. So the question really is, what's the Constitutional reason for violating that?I don't care what the mindset of America is, I'm saying they needed to cite at least the barest hint of a Constitutional reason. Otherwise, any law -- including the Constitution -- is up for grabs on the basis of age.
As long as the Democrats keep creating false Narratives like the Republicans war on whatever, and appealing to the stupidest among us the Country will continue to decline.
People want jobs, not manufactured narratives.
Alas, they're moving to Texas.
It discarded a law passed in 2006 that was never relevant.They aren't coequal, and the Court does not have the authority to discard a law it thinks is no longer relevant.
They aren't coequal, and the Court does not have the authority to discard a law it thinks is no longer relevant.
Fenton, the GOP has cornered the stupid vote. So no worries there. False narratives? Hardly my friend. People do want jobs, and while neither party has done nearly enough to create them (and Republicans have done what they can to prevent the President from succeeding in creating them), it's the GOP that has voted almost 40 times to kill ACA (at $2 million a shot and knowing full well they can't do it), instead of coming up with jobs bills. And, yes, Dems are moving to TX and they and other demographic changes may just turn TX into a Blue state ... not alas, but rather at last ...
The power to regulate elections is reserved to the states per the 10th amendment. So the question really is, what's the Constitutional reason for violating that?
It discarded a law passed in 2006 that was never relevant.
yes, they are all three equal in power.......know as a separation of powers, ..........or federalism a separation of state and federal power
It's the Legislative Branch's " job " to write legislation.
The fact you think their job includes "creating jobs " speaks volumes to your lack of economic knowledge.
We tried that already. "Stimulus" was a miserable failure.
We only want to protect the 14th amendment rights of voters in 15 states? Hardly seems fair to people in the other 35.Protecting the 14th Amendment rights of the voters to equal protection under the law would be my first guess. I'm sure there was a 15th Amendment aspect as well.
They aren't coequal, and the Court does not have the authority to discard a law it thinks is no longer relevant.
to the degree that it failed to do more, the stimulus, a joint Republican/Democrat venture, still prevented us from sliding into Bush's depression. Are you sure it's the other poster who lacks "economic knowledge?" What the real failure has been has been GOP House members committing themselves to making sure that Obama fails, and screw the rest of us ... a rather short-sighted view, and it cost them the election in 2012 ... the people were actually paying attention ...
They are not in any way equal. Membership / election go by entirely different methods, and their respective jurisdictions or functions are not equal.
The people who took part in the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march would laugh at you for thinking that the voting rights act was passed in 2006.the voting rights act was never relevent? the people who took part in the Selma to Montgomery voting rights march would disagree with you.It discarded a law passed in 2006 that was never relevant.